ForumsWEPRWhat would be the best way to unpopulate the earth

290 32852
thecode11
offline
thecode11
242 posts
505

Any answers hopefully humane and by unpopulate i mean lower human populations.

  • 290 Replies
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

Ernie's first idea (the libertarianism one) is unlikely to happen because of obvious social disagreement, political limitations, and other unneeded-to-point-out factors. If you want an example, look at how popular the libertarians are.

His second idea (the polar ice caps one) is unlikely to happen because, as FishPreferred pointed out, we're in a fragile enough situation as it is. That and the resources to pull such a feat off are tremendously expensive, while a racial genocide would be much easier.

I'm humourously in favor of the Carlin "4 Groups of People that Gotta Go" scenario.

MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,836 posts
4,340

So, libertarianism wouldn't work because of social disagreement, but racial genocide would? There would be a lot more disagreement in general with straight-out race-based genocide.

Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

I said racial genocide would be easier than melting the ice caps. Each of those paragraphs are to be considered separately.

Need evidence?

Nazis came pretty danged close.

Devoidless
offline
Devoidless
3,725 posts
3,620

Nazis came pretty danged close.

I already suggested that, but noooo. Apparently it isn't a viable solution. Pfft, as if. Maybe if we target Christians first it would be more effective.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,836 posts
4,340

Nazis came pretty danged close.


The total cost of WWII was upwards on a trillion dollars (the U.S. paid about $350 billion of it) and lasted six years. That's a pretty big budget to work with. With research specifically focused on destroying the ice caps and $350,000,000,000 behind it, I think we could come up with something (and this is if the U.S. alone works on the project), though it might take longer than six years.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

First of all, I don't understand your point. It may just be me, but it went right over my head. Secondly, how much do you think it really costs to melt a continent (and then some), and why?

MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,836 posts
4,340

First of all, I don't understand your point. It may just be me, but it went right over my head.


Hmm. You said that genocide would be easier and used the Nazis as evidence. I responded by saying that WWII was not "easy" at all, using the price and duration as evidence. Plus, the Nazis ultimately failed. You can't say that a project to melt the ice caps would fail, as no one has attempted to do so.

My point is this. Given the same resources (budget and time), we might be able to develop a way to melt the ice, meaning that it would in fact be easier. To answer your question, I have no idea how much it would cost and I'm not going to hazard a guess, but $350B is a good start (assuming the U.S. was the only country that attempted this), and I would place all of it into research.

With serious focus on one specific topic, science may come up with an effective device and/or method of succeeding. Several great breakthroughs in history came from people saying something couldn't be done, when in reality it only took ingenuity and hard work. If nothing else, I did make the time limit optional. It might take a hundred years for all I know, but it might take less than six.

Did that make sense? Sorry if it was confusing.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

Plus, the Nazis ultimately failed. You can't say that a project to melt the ice caps would fail, as no one has attempted to do so.


Because of war.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

Here is an article to show that melting the ice caps would cost more than WWII (2-20 trillion or something like that). Also, melting the ice caps is a very noticeable problem, compared to racial genocide anyway. There is genocide occurring right now, so yeah. Are we done with this topic? :S

Graham
offline
Graham
8,089 posts
580

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is a good example of showing just how much Nuclear Weapons we've stockpiled up in the cold war.

If your argument is that the most cost-efficient way is the most humane way, you're contradicting your original post regarding nuclear radiation.

MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,836 posts
4,340

Actually, the article states that the ice caps, melting at their current rate, take "an economic toll of between $2.4 trillion and $24 trillion." That's what it costs the globe for the ice caps melting in economic loss. I'm talking about a precision effort to multiply the process, hopefully with a breakthrough.

Here's an example (it's not perfect, but hopefully it'll do): You have a building full of people, and you want to kill most of them. It costs you X dollars every year to keep it from falling apart (maintenance, repairs, insurance, etc), keeping the people inside alive. Rather than wait for it to fall apart to kill the people inside, you decide to demolish the entire thing at once and assume some will survive. However, you have no idea how to do so and no one has ever attempted such a thing. Would it be faster and less expensive to research a way to destroy it? Or would you prefer to, say, manually kill X number of people without the rest of the people stopping you by fighting back?

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

Actually, the article states that the ice caps, melting at their current rate, take "an economic toll of between $2.4 trillion and $24 trillion." That's what it costs the globe for the ice caps melting in economic loss.


Not sure if I'm missing something here..but you just basically stated the long version of "how much it costs".

. Rather than wait for it to fall apart to kill the people inside, you decide to demolish the entire thing at once and assume some will survive.


Alright good we are back on the genocide talk I like this

Or would you prefer to, say, manually kill X number of people without the rest of the people stopping you by fighting back?


Should be easy enough.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

You were looking for the most cost-effective way. Economic loss and economic investments for an end-all-be-all ultimatum are the same. Even at that, why does money matter in the first place?

For your example:
1. The icecaps can/will not be demolished all at once.
2. If the icecaps melted entirely, no one would survive. Hence our fragile ecosystems.
3. The "no one has ever done this before" excuse is uncredible because we know what happens to enraged ecosystems, and we know what happens to and because of melted icecaps. Stats help us predict. Granted, environmental science is not something I claim familiarity with, but I am aware that gauging from evidence is a reasonable thing to do.

Devoidless
offline
Devoidless
3,725 posts
3,620

Or would you prefer to, say, manually kill X number of people without the rest of the people stopping you by fighting back?
[quote]Should be easy enough.
[/quote]

Pretty much. Ask Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, the Hutu...
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,836 posts
4,340

Should be easy enough.


The problem, though, is that after WWII (referring back to the Nazi example), we experienced a "baby boom," where all the survivors came home and "celebrated." It didn't succeed in thoroughly reducing the population...wait...

Question: Are we referring to immediate, temporary population reductions or long-term plans that will keep populations low? I assumed it was the latter.
Showing 256-270 of 290